RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response (Refused Drinks)

[harvyk]

I think so too. It's the elephant in the thread.

Small serves? meh

Occasional perceived rudeness from staff? meh

This is an international 1st class lounge and you are on a $40 domestic fare? bingo!

If you've paid $40, you've paid $5 too much.

On a more serious note, it takes more than a sweet smile to get past the door guards. To get into that lounge you've had to either clock up some serious miles or spent some serious dollars on QF / OW or be with someone whom has. Sure TT price match pax was not whom the lounge was built for, but if all you did was fly TT price match and not step foot on QF or OW you won't be getting a look in on your own merits in the first place.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

RSA MEL F Lounge Qantas Official Response ( Refused Drinks)

If there is an element of targeting JQ pax then, first, it wouldn't be discrimination, just different treatment, and second, a better option would be to restrict JQ pax to the J lounge. I don't see how they could complain about that.

 

[opusman]

I don't see how they could complain about that.

If you believe that you haven't been on AFF long enough

 

[TomVexille]

Then we get add in the WP guesting element on the JQ price beat on TT and it gets messy.
Best not go there IMHO.

Absolutely right. If you are allowed in the lounge you should be treated like you belong.

The access rules are a different argument.

 

[TomVexille]

When it's MEL-SYD, I think Flounge staff would:

1. Be aware that if flying JQd from MEL international, most pax are on very cheap fares. Often cheaper even than the JQ fares from the domestic terminal on the same day.

and/or

2. Be aware that most MEL-SYD JQd pax would not be paying anything like $200 for Y from MEL to SYD.

Not a great perception for them to deal with.

It's not up to the Accor Food and Beverage staff to make assumptions about that perception. It's their job to provide excellent service to the people who have spent the most with QF and or OneWorld. It's up to QF to set and police the entry rules, not Accor.

 

[Lucky_man]

If I may make a call for realism.
1 or 2 dubious RSA calls and 20 pages of doom saying.

Could you imagine the conversation behind the bar amongst the staff before hand.

A: I might RSA these guys before it gets out of hand - they just come in and hit it pretty hard - what do you think?
B: Good idea it will save Qantas $20 - I might RSA this guy over here soon.

If it was really a cost cutting measure it would only be effective if set as a clear policy and we'd be seeing many reports of it (if there aren't many reports then it would not be saving much money).

Maybe this is the TOTFAP (Thread of the free and paranoid). I seem to notice a connection between drug (ab)use and paranoia.

The customer service response may have been a bit average but if I ran a licensed premise I'd be 100% supporting my staff's RSA calls in public (and may counsel them privately). So not good but not unexpected.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Maybe this is the TOTFAP (Thread of the free and paranoid). I seem to notice a connection between drug (ab)use and paranoia.

Gee I wonder if this line is going to get a reaction?

 

[cove]

The last times we were in the First lounge we had a glass of water with each of us having a meal. I don't view the First lounge as being a Qantas pub. It should be a place to relax and maybe get a spa treat before a longhaul flight.

 

[Anna]

As a 68 year old man I would find it terrible that by denying me more than 3 drinks QF may be increasing my risk of death.

What? Your risk of death isn't 100% like the rest of us mortals?

 

[Anna]

However, a lot of what we describe as tolerance (ie not appearing drunk) is not metabolising alcohol more quickly-it is just having a brain that is accustomed to dealing with alcohol and functioning. This would correspond with what you see in Emergency where vagrants may have seemingly fatal blood alcohol concentrations while still being alert and talkative

I would say not limited to vagrants. I know plenty of what are sometimes called "high functioning alcoholics"* with tertiary qualifications and professional jobs who are adept at hiding the physical signs that they are drunk.

*old fashioned term, I know.

 

[RooFlyer]

If I may make a call for realism.
1 or 2 dubious RSA calls and 20 pages of doom saying.
<snip>.

I think you need to read the 20 pages of doom saying a bit more closely. A bit more than "1 or 2"; that's realism.

<snip>
Could you imagine the conversation behind the bar amongst the staff before hand.

A: I might RSA these guys before it gets out of hand - they just come in and hit it pretty hard - what do you think?
B: Good idea it will save Qantas $20 - I might RSA this guy over here soon.
<snip>.

I think the conversation would be a bit more pithy and vexatious than that. Ever worked in a service place and heard what is said behind the counter? Wait staff need to amuse themselves, too.

<snip>
If it was really a cost cutting measure it would only be effective if set as a clear policy and we'd be seeing many reports of it (if there aren't many reports then it would not be saving much money).
<snip>.

You don't really believe that, do you? Do you think everything that goes on at a service establishment is a matter of 'clear policy'? Like the occasional coughroach? Short pours? Rudeness?

<snip>

Maybe this is the TOTFAP (Thread of the free and paranoid). I seem to notice a connection between drug (ab)use and paranoia.

<snip>.

And welcome to the thread! Now what's brought that on?

 

[Austman]

It's not up to the Accor Food and Beverage staff to make assumptions about that perception. It's their job to provide excellent service to the people who have spent the most with QF and or OneWorld. It's up to QF to set and police the entry rules, not Accor.

I agree. But I just can't see how the MEL Flounge staff wouldn't have the cheapskate perception when they know that the domestic pax are likely to be on a very cheap ticket that might not even cover the cost of a (full) glass of wine or two. They should ignore it - the pax are WPs (or above and their guests) after all - but they'd still perceive it. And that cheapskate perception might lead to a different attitude to things like speed of service and RSA.

 

[kevrosmith]

I agree. But I just can't see how the MEL Flounge staff wouldn't have the cheapskate perception when they know that the domestic pax are likely to be on a very cheap ticket that might not even cover the cost of a (full) glass of wine or two. They should ignore it - the pax are WPs (or above and their guests) after all - but they'd still perceive it. And that cheapskate perception might lead to a different attitude to things like speed of service and RSA.

The only reason the waitstaff would know or care about would be because this is what management (either Accor or QF) are telling them to care about it.

 

[blackcat20]

If you've paid $40, you've paid $5 too much.

On a more serious note, it takes more than a sweet smile to get past the door guards. To get into that lounge you've had to either clock up some serious miles or spent some serious dollars on QF / OW or be with someone whom has. Sure TT price match pax was not whom the lounge was built for, but if all you did was fly TT price match and not step foot on QF or OW you won't be getting a look in on your own merits in the first place.

Exactly. Even if you are flying JQ, your done enough flying to earn the right to be there.

If I may make a call for realism.
1 or 2 dubious RSA calls and 20 pages of doom saying.

Could you imagine the conversation behind the bar amongst the staff before hand.

A: I might RSA these guys before it gets out of hand - they just come in and hit it pretty hard - what do you think?
B: Good idea it will save Qantas $20 - I might RSA this guy over here soon.

If it was really a cost cutting measure it would only be effective if set as a clear policy and we'd be seeing many reports of it (if there aren't many reports then it would not be saving much money).

Maybe this is the TOTFAP (Thread of the free and paranoid). I seem to notice a connection between drug (ab)use and paranoia.

The customer service response may have been a bit average but if I ran a licensed premise I'd be 100% supporting my staff's RSA calls in public (and may counsel them privately). So not good but not unexpected.

At least 3 actually.

And are you implying JessicaTam, TomVexille and myself were 'getting out of hand'??? You've obviously never met us but I can assure you, as would many here, that we are not the type to run rampant in the lounge and need to be cut off in order to moderate our behaviour.

 

[harvyk]

The only reason the waitstaff would know or care about would be because this is what management (either Accor or QF) are telling them to care about it.

Or pure jealousy, I highly doubt the average wait staff in the FLounges would ever get a look in on their own merits. If they are Accor then might not even get the flying perks which are afforded to other full time QF staff members.

From a staff members point of view, RSA is pretty much a risk free method of retribution against those they don't like, or they are jealous of.

 

[ogs70]

Or pure jealousy, I highly doubt the average wait staff in the FLounges would ever get a look in on their own merits. If they are Accor then might not even get the flying perks which are afforded to other full time QF staff members.

From a staff members point of view, RSA is pretty much a risk free method of retribution against those they don't like, or they are jealous of.

Being as though those members of staff are paid to be in there, I would be surprised if they walked around harbouring high amounts of jealously of those getting to sit down to an extent where it's manifesting itself maliciously.

Having the ability to sit in an F lounge is not an aspirational activity for everyone.

 

[Mr_Orange]

This sounds like Sofitel (is it them who run the F Lounges) penny pinching by restricting access to the expensive Champagne and wines.

It seems like a bona fide QF employee needs to run the lounge to keep the over-zealous Sofitel employees in check. After all, what do Sofitel care if they p1ss off some QF customers, they are not Sofitel customers!!

From reading later posts, it seems I may have incorrectly called out Sofitel as the lounge operators. In the interests of avoiding slander (or is it libel (where's the grammar thread)) I should acknowledge that it is not Sofitel but Accor (also noting that Accor Group own the Sofitel brand) who operate the lounge.

Crawls back under hot rock in sunny Brisbane.

 

[RichardMEL]

When it's MEL-SYD, I think Flounge staff would:

1. Be aware that if flying JQd from MEL international, most pax are on very cheap fares. Often cheaper even than the JQ fares from the domestic terminal on the same day.

and/or

2. Be aware that most MEL-SYD JQd pax would not be paying anything like $200 for Y from MEL to SYD.

Not a great perception for them to deal with.

Or they COULD be buying a Business Max fare of around $470 (last I looked) as either a SC run or for their own reasons. So what?

You can extend this argument to domestic business lounges and QC's IMHO. It seems QF made the JQ rule to benefit its status pax flying JQ because QF pulled out of so many markets (both domestic and int) on a cost/revenue basis so they had to do something to appease the masses.. now, if this "conspiracy theory" is to be take as fact, they don't like that WP's are flying JQ, specially on domestic sectors (eg: JQ 37/38) and using the F lounge.

I see "Simpler and Fairer" coming along with a simple mod to T&C

"Access to International First Class lounges for Platinum/Platinum One Members flying Jetstar Airlines*#/## (* Includes Jetstar Asia) (# Must be flying in First Class(Excludes codeshare flight numbers, except those operated by QF) or full fare/Business Max Business Class or JetFlex (Y).) ## Platinum One members may be granted access on any fare type.)"

obviously I am super "enhancing" the fine print there on purpose, but you get the idea.

As an aside in a week or so I shall be in the AA FCL at LAX about to board a CRJ to podunkville on a S class (super coughtastic Y) fare. I bet AA feel the same about my access to that lounge, but at least they can charge the cough out of QF for it!

 

[RichardMEL]

Or pure jealousy, I highly doubt the average wait staff in the FLounges would ever get a look in on their own merits. If they are Accor then might not even get the flying perks which are afforded to other full time QF staff members.

Gee that's a big assumption and a bit of a stereotype about waitstaff IMHO, but that aside perhaps having worked in such a place, seen the clientele and what goes on "behind the scenes" they may not *WANT* access!!!

 

[RichardMEL]

Being as though those members of staff are paid to be in there, I would be surprised if they walked around harbouring high amounts of jealously of those getting to sit down to an extent where it's manifesting itself maliciously.

Having the ability to sit in an F lounge is not an aspirational activity for everyone.

I would tend to agre. I am sure most would see this work along the same lines as corporate hospitality at say Flemmington or the Grand Prix, or at a (upscale) wedding. It's work, the huge majority of the guests are well behaved and mannered, have a set(mostly ) time of departure and hopefully not too demanding.

Now like most people I know any envy may be more along the lines of "lucky sods get to fly to London or LA or... Sydney" and anyone, no matter a waiter, barkeep or my boss can aspire to such things (most people love to travel) but really i think it's a bit much to insinuate that staff in a lounge would be jealous of the passengers because they are being served French Champagne or whatever.